« Why are murder rates so high in Puerto Rico and might criminal law be to blame? | Main | Alabama legislators proposing adult day-care "clusters" for sex offenders »

October 20, 2013

"Alleyne v. United States, Age as an Element, and the Retroactivity of Miller v. Alabama"

The title of this post is the title of this intriguing Essay by Beth Colgan recently published on the UCLA Law Review's on-line supplement. The introduction previews the issues and argument in the piece:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced in Miller v. Alabama, that the mandatory imposition of life in prison without the possibility of parole against juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  The million-dollar question is whether it would do any good for the over 2000 juveniles who had previously been so sentenced. For those jurisdictions that follow or rely heavily on the dictates of retroactivity set out by the Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane, the touchstone of Miller’s retroactivity hinges on whether the rule it announced is substantive — and therefore retroactive — or procedural.

The Miller opinion provides no clear guidance.   On the one hand, the opinion sounded in procedure, with the Court requiring “that a sentencer follow a certain process — considering an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics — before imposing a particular penalty.”  On the other hand, the opinion sounded in substantive law, in that it required fundamental changes in criminal laws that mandate the imposition of life without parole in homicide cases where the crime was committed before the defendant’s eighteenth birthday.  Prior to Miller, states and the federal government could require that a court impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile without consideration of the defendant’s youth.  But the Miller Court rejected such mandatory sentencing, reasoning that “age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” a juvenile’s history of abuse, the role the juvenile played in the homicide, the existence of peer pressure, the difficulties juveniles have navigating the legal system, and juveniles’ unique capacity for rehabilitation are all constitutionally relevant and therefore a sentencer must have an opportunity to consider such facts at sentencing.

The quasi-substantive/quasi-procedural nature of the opinion created a conundrum for lower courts assessing the retroactivity of the decision.  The answer to this puzzle may come from an unlikely source: the Court’s Sixth Amendment jury trial jurisprudence, and particularly its June 2013 interpretation of that right in Alleyne v. United States.  Though unrelated to both juvenile sentencing and the question of retroactivity, the Alleyne Court did determine that where the existence of a fact dictates whether a mandatory minimum applies, the fact is, in effect, an element of the underlying offense.  This Essay extrapolates from the Alleyne holding to argue that Miller’s requirement that sentencers consider age and its attendant consequences in cases involving juveniles — making age at the time of the offense a fact that triggers whether the mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole applies — converts age to an element of the underlying offense, rendering Miller a substantive rule that must be applied retroactively.

October 20, 2013 at 07:45 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2019b002c6558970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Alleyne v. United States, Age as an Element, and the Retroactivity of Miller v. Alabama":

Comments

There was an argument that language in Apprendi, i.e., facts that increase the sentence are actually elements, should result in Apprendi being a substantive decision for purposes of retroactivity. Decisions from post-Apprendi Court of Appeals opinion also had helpful language. I think one dissent in the 5th Circuit agreed that it was substantive for retroactivity purposes. I think there may have been some district court(s) that also indicated this. However, I think all of the Court of Appeals opinions that addressed this procedural/substantive issue did not agree that it was substantive for purposes of retroactivity. I question whether Alleyne really said much, beyond what Apprendi already said, to support an argument that it involves a substantive matter for purposes of Teague retroactivity.

Posted by: Tim Holloway | Oct 21, 2013 1:02:11 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB